Confirmed: Older graphics card not supported by OSX - Page 7

[quote]Originally posted by Bogie:
<strong>Both you - I was the one that made the 3-5 year statement and as the statement was regarding ATi writing drivers for "stuff" it is easy to tell from the context that it referred to ATi graphics cards, nice of you to side step that Sinewave.
<hr></blockquote></strong>

It was easy to tell from the context? AHahah lets see here

"I doubt Apple is willing to [and it does not make sense to] pay ATi as much as they would make working on new products to write new drivers for 3-5 year old stuff."

Yeah it's pretty obvious you was talking about the graphics chip there Bogie. No you didn't make yourself clear as to what "stuff" (a generic term) you was referring to.

I took it to mean.

"I doubt Apple is willing to [and it does not make sense to] pay ATi as much as they would make working on new products to write new drivers for 3-5 year old computers"

Notice how that too works in place of "stuff" and since we was talking about these unsupported computers.. it would only make sense. It wasn't "easy to tell" what you meant or obviously I would have known.

Try Again.

[ 01-03-2002: Message edited by: Sinewave ]</p>

The crucial memorandum will be snared in the out-basket bythe paper clip of the overlying memo and go to file.

I'm sure I didn't have it in the first place. But, you know, if I become unpopular because I stand my ground then so be it. If people like you want to suck Apple's cock and dirty your nose with Job's backside be my guest.

I'll stand by and call Apple a chump when I see it. Keep my nose clean and not go down on my boyfriend.
</strong><hr></blockquote>

Scott they can't help it.. when people mention anything Apple does that is bad their apologetic ears burn.

The crucial memorandum will be snared in the out-basket bythe paper clip of the overlying memo and go to file.

??? Similarly, Apple never made anyone think that they [Apple] were going to swap their Rage Pro for a Rage128 free of charge out of the kindness of their hearts. So what has that got to do with anything?

The point I was trying to make was that both G3 and G4 computers can run OSX and are essentially "OSX ready". However, OSX also has and will include further enhancements that utilize the Altivec unit in only G4-equipped machines. By your strict definition of what counts as "OSX ready", how can any G3 computer be labeled as "OSX ready" when they are fundamentally unequipped with an Altivec unit. Nevertheless, they do run OSX just fine (according to some). They certainly meet the basic "OSX ready" qualification as they are functional to do work on. They just don't meet your strict definition of "OSX ready". In the end, it is largely inconsequential save for a bit of speed- hardly enough to get so upset over, hardly enough to accuse others of "sucking Apple's cock", and hardly enough to accuse others of "happily taking it in the rear by Apple", etc.
</strong><hr></blockquote>

Heh for one Altivec isn't a Core OS X Technology.

For another Apple specifically said G3s are not Altivec enhanced.

Had Apple made a claim that these ATI cards would not be OpenGL enhanced there would be no problem.

Apple wouldn't have lied.

Again Altivec isn't a CORE OS X Feature.

The crucial memorandum will be snared in the out-basket bythe paper clip of the overlying memo and go to file.

1st - "3-5 year old stuff" problem with your confusion is that ATi doesn't make computers, they make graphics chips, and if you know anything about sentence structure, ie you read, you would see that Apple is paying and ATi is making something. So what does ATi make? Yeah, not computers.

2nd - you still have not stated your purpose, is this too hard for you? What [clearly and concisely] do you mean to accomplish by arguing in this forum?

[quote]Originally posted by Bogie:
<strong>2nd - you still have not stated your purpose, is this too hard for you? What [clearly and concisely] do you mean to accomplish by arguing in this forum?</strong><hr></blockquote>

We have to have a "purpose" to post here? I suppose yours is "valid" and others are "invalid". Right?

I asked about a page ago what the goal of the argument you and Sinewave are making is, I am not asking because I think it is valid or invalid I am asking because I can't determine what it is, besides wanting to bitch.

I am asking straight out for you to correct me and tell me what your goal in arguing is, both of you have side stepped my question or completely ignored it.

Now look, Scott - you lash out at me claiming that I am going to call your reason invalid when I ask what your reason is, talk about defensive. Sinewave, you just ignore my request for your purpose all together.

Here is why I am asking:

1st - To try and get this thread back on topic, it has degenerated to name calling and in my opinion should come back to topic or just get locked up because it does not comply with AI's thread policies. The topic was a discussion of support under Mac OS X for early Rage chipsets, not a shouting match, not name calling.

2nd - To figure out what the two of you [Applenut seemed to have left so now it is just Scott and Sinewave] want out of this since you are continuing to fight and bash people. If your goal is to get drivers for the graphics chips calling people here names is not going to get them written, and if you want to convince others of your side, we need to know what that side is.

3rd - To determine who [Apple/ATi] is ultimately responsible to write the drivers, who [Apple/ATi] has access the necessary information to write the drivers. I know that Sinewave and Scott both think Apple is responsible but other than the computers in question having been made by Apple and Apple saying those computers could run Mac OS X, I have seen no conclusive evidence either way. While the "Apple made the claim and the computer" argument does create a logical connection between Apple's products and their responsibility to support those products, the connection is just as well made by the fact that ATi has pledged Mac OS X support and ATi made the graphics chips. Neither is conclusive as to which [Apple/ATi] is responsible for getting it done.

So, can either of you [Scott/Sinewave] answer what your goal/purpose/point/whatever in this argument/discussion/name calling match is?

PS - Scott, no if you want to go through life without a purpose, I spose you don't need one, but if you are pushing an agenda and you want it to succeed it will help your audience to know what that agenda is.

[EDIT ADDED - Sinewave's name at the top by Scott's, the PS note, and clarified some wording in my 3rd statement.]

1st - "3-5 year old stuff" problem with your confusion is that ATi doesn't make computers, they make graphics chips, <hr></blockquote></strong>
We where talking about ATI supporting these machines for OS X. When you said "stuff" I believed "stuff" = computers. Stop being a ass. You know very well you weren't clear on the issue. Your arguing semantics.
[quote]<strong>
and if you know anything about sentence structure, ie you read, you would see that Apple is paying and ATi is making something. So what does ATi make? Yeah, not computers.<hr></blockquote></strong>
No but ATI makes the cards in the computers that aren't supported by OS X.
[quote]<strong>
2nd - you still have not stated your purpose, is this too hard for you? What [clearly and concisely] do you mean to accomplish by arguing in this forum?</strong><hr></blockquote>

I don't know.. what is your purpose? I hadn't said a thing about it till some of you morons starting making fun of the people complaining about a legitimate issue. Like they had no reason to complain. I come in to support them saying I too think it's bogus and I get called a whiner and a moron. You tell me.

The crucial memorandum will be snared in the out-basket bythe paper clip of the overlying memo and go to file.

[quote]Originally posted by Bogie:
<strong>
3rd - To determine who [Apple/ATi] is ultimately responsible to write the drivers, who [Apple/ATi] has access the necessary information to write the drivers. </strong><hr></blockquote>
Again.. it's not up to ATI to back up Apple's claims. It's up to Apple to take the initiative to get it done. ATI did not make the OS X ready claims. Apple is responsible for their own words. Not ATI.
[quote]<strong>
I know that Sinewave and Scott both think Apple is responsible but other than the computers in question having been made by Apple and Apple saying those computers could run Mac OS X, I have seen no conclusive evidence either way.
<hr></blockquote></strong>
Sure you have. Are you saying Apple didn't make claims of OS X readiness?
[quote]<strong>
While the "Apple made the claim and the computer" argument does create a logical connection between Apple's products and their responsibility to support those products, the connection is just as well made by the fact that ATi has pledged Mac OS X support and ATi made the graphics chips. Neither is conclusive as to which [Apple/ATi] is responsible for getting it done.
<hr></blockquote></strong>
[broken record]
Again ATI never made claim that any certain chipset would be OS X ready. ONLY Apple made those claims.[/broken record]

The crucial memorandum will be snared in the out-basket bythe paper clip of the overlying memo and go to file.

[quote]Originally posted by Bogie:
<strong>Sinewave you just misread my post, ignored most of it and again failed to provide an answer to my chief question: what are you trying to accomplish?</strong><hr></blockquote>
I did no such thing. I came in here to take up for the people you guys where calling whiners for complaining about this. What are you trying to accomplish?
[quote]<strong>
And in response, ATi has stated Mac OS X compatibility, look on their website.</strong><hr></blockquote>

In the hopes of confirming that either it is Apple's responsibility or that it is in fact ATi's I am emailing ATi to ask their tech support about their OS X compatibility. I know Sinewave and Scott will tell me that some how asking for the facts from the source that knows is a copout I am going to do it anyway. Here is the little info I found on their site.

This second site states that OEM onboard chipsets are by ATi not "Powered by ATi" and made by someone else.

When I did a search for Mac OS X support I found this statement:

ATI is working with Apple® to complete multimedia support under OS X for supported products. For information regarding OS X technical specifications and release schedule, consult the Apple® web site at <a href="http://www.apple.com." target="_blank">www.apple.com.</a>

Also of interest:

Will ATI graphics features under Classic be equivalent to those under OS 9.1?

ATI's OpenGL acceleration on Mac OS X has several enhancements over OpenGL under Mac OS 9.1, including improved OpenGL conformance and robustness, support for stencil buffers, and support for all 3 texture units on RADEON. 3D RAVE applications are also hardware accelerated under Classic via OpenGL. Because Classic has different kernel than OS 9, some hardware features that are accessible in Mac OS 9.1 are not accessible in Classic. For this reason, there is no support for some multimedia features under Classic.

"I came in here to take up for the people you guys where calling whiners for complaining about this." - Sinewave

So your sole mission is to defend people who left? Tell me if I understood you correctly.

"What are you trying to accomplish?" - Sinewave

I stated my purpose in my last post:

1) To try and get this thread back on topic from a name calling match.

2) To determine who is really responsible, you have a very logical argument to leave responsibility at Apple's door, however, it is not supported by anything other than logic. It makes sense but that doesn't mean its right, I want to find out for sure if it is right or not.

PS

Anyone notice that I am not arguing, just asking a question or two and saying that we should find out more info? Just how offensive can that be?

[quote]Originally posted by Bogie:
<strong>So your sole mission is to defend people who left?
<hr></blockquote></strong>
I am sure if I stopped posting they would be posting again
[quote]<strong>
I stated my purpose in my last post: to try and get this thread back on topic from a name calling match.</strong><hr></blockquote>

How am I taking it off topic? I have been discussing the poor support for machines Apple claims it was going to support. Wasn't that what this topic was about?

The crucial memorandum will be snared in the out-basket bythe paper clip of the overlying memo and go to file.

From a post by Sinewave:
Bogie: "I doubt Apple is willing to [and it does not make sense to] pay ATi as much as they would make working on new products to write new drivers for 3-5 year old stuff."

Sinewave: Yeah it's pretty obvious you was talking about the graphics chip there Bogie. No you didn't make yourself clear as to what "stuff" (a generic term) you was referring to.

No. You are just posting replies to selected lines without looking back at what people said. RazzFazz took the time to state that the 3-5 years in the Bogie/Sinewave exchange referred to the graphics chipset. Mr. Sinewave did not challenge the facts at that time and only claimed that he did not understand the meaning of "stuff" when selected lines were cited to illustrate the discrepancy.

(I really wanted to keep myself out of this thread, but I just can't help it, sorry.)

Sinewave, as far as I can remember, the *ONLY* one who repeatedly called others morons in this thread are *YOU*.

Bye,
RazzFazz</strong><hr></blockquote>

Really you didn't see Scott H. do it? Or how about.

Or Codename making fun of someone cause they was Republican?
Or applenut calling people dumbasses?
Or BuonRotto calling people obnoxious telling people that the are having tantrums?
Or Kuku calling people cranky old foggy's or wussies and whiners?
Or DaveGee making fun on someone cause they are from the Bronx?
Or Bogie calling me a spammer and saying I am being "too bitchy"?
Or SkipJack telling me I have no credibility with bogus proof?
Or Some one hiding behind a nick "AppleApologist" to flame me?

Do you have selective site?

Not that these people doing it somehow justifies me doing it.

It just seems no one gets that Apple was the only company that made the OS X ready claims for these machines.

The crucial memorandum will be snared in the out-basket bythe paper clip of the overlying memo and go to file.

[quote]Originally posted by Skipjack:
<strong>From a post by Sinewave:
Bogie: "I doubt Apple is willing to [and it does not make sense to] pay ATi as much as they would make working on new products to write new drivers for 3-5 year old stuff."

Sinewave: Yeah it's pretty obvious you was talking about the graphics chip there Bogie. No you didn't make yourself clear as to what "stuff" (a generic term) you was referring to.

No. You are just posting replies to selected lines without looking back at what people said. RazzFazz took the time to state that the 3-5 years in the Bogie/Sinewave exchange referred to the graphics chipset. Mr. Sinewave did not challenge the facts at that time and only claimed that he did not understand the meaning of "stuff" when selected lines were cited to illustrate the discrepancy.

[ 01-03-2002: Message edited by: Skipjack ]</strong><hr></blockquote>

Bogie wasn't being clear and expected people to read his mind. "How are you not know what I am talking about!"

The crucial memorandum will be snared in the out-basket bythe paper clip of the overlying memo and go to file.

It was not bogus and you are still not taking the entire thread into context, but backpedaling. See the previous comment.

Or Some one hiding behind a nick "AppleApologist" to flame me?

No one is hiding behind the nick AppleApologist.
AppleApologist was used because I was posting from work. You never asked or challenged the remarks.

It just seems no one gets that Apple was the only company that made the OS X ready claims for these machines.

You know, I don't think anyone has disputed this. There has been a debate about whether or not, in certain individual's experience "OS X ready" means the same thing to you as it does to someone else, and you are not respecting their opinion that for their purposes they see nothing wrong with OS X on the computers in question.

I believe people are trying to get a little more information. We already know your opinion and the discussion gets confrontational when people respond to individual lines in in individual posts taking things out of context or without regard to posts which have come before.

As for the Republican comment, I agree that personal, but then that person has not been back.

But the tread up to a point was supportive of the position of Scott H. and applenut until someone had a different opinion, at which point Scott H. coined the Apple Apologist (TM) and started labelling anyone who had a different opinion (whether or not it supported Apple's policy or whether it was just a technical discussion) as openly supportive of Apple's clear intention to defraud the public.

So, again,

For some of us (perhaps because we grew up when sliderules were the rage), OS X works fine. The "power users" should respect that.

For others, OS X is still not adequate. I think we agree on that.

The particular subject is older ATI graphics.
ATI has stated that it will no longer support driver development drivers for those cards.

Apple may or may not have stated that it will no longer develop drivers. Yes, the news media said that Apple would no longer develop drivers, but there are circumstances which indicate that their interpretation might not reflect Apple's intentions.

If Apple has made it the policy that it will never improve the drivers, then some computers will never work to their user's expectations, and those users feel betrayed by Apple. Also, some see this as Apple's planned obsolescence in order to spur their hardware sales. Some people see this as unethical and some see it as "business as usual".

OK, so what can we expect from Apple (whether or not it is the right thing to do)? Do we expect them to submit to pressure, do we expect them to ignore their customers, do we not expect drivers due to technical reasons beyond their control?

I use a stock 9500 with a stock graphics card and a G3/400 upgrade, an original iBook, and a G4/450 Cube. I do some word processing, web surfing/shopping, and programming both in the GUI and in the terminal. OS X is fine for my needs and is at least as comfortable to use as the Dual P3/600 Mhz units with NT 4.0 that I test every day for work.

I believe there may be technical issues which may prevent Apple from developing drivers as demonstrated by the cross-platform difficulties that people are having getting the Rage Pro drivers to work with the newer OSs (both OS X and Win XP). In the case that Apple has stopped work on the drivers as a business decision, I believe that Apple will work on the drivers, but not as a priority (maybe by next year).

If OS X did not work properly on the iBook, then I would feel betrayed by Apple, but in my experience, I haven't seen any problems so don't know what the fuss is about.

Perhaps if people would state some examples, I could be sympathetic, but until then I haven't even heard of any behaviors cited in this thread to look for, except for one comment about playing Quake on an iMac.

[quote]Originally posted by Sinewave:
<strong>
Really you didn't see Scott H. do it? Or how about.
(...)
Or applenut calling people dumbasses?
Or BuonRotto calling people obnoxious
</strong><hr></blockquote>

I don't remember any one of them using the word moron in this thread, nor anyone else, except for you.

Still, I do agree that others have shown comparably unnecessary rough behaviour in this thread. Yet, as you state yourself later on:
[quote]<strong>
"Not that these people doing it somehow justifies me doing it."
</strong><hr></blockquote>

[quote]<strong>
(BuonRotto) telling people that the are having tantrums?
Or Kuku calling people cranky old foggy's or wussies (...)?
</strong><hr></blockquote>

Well, these are somewhat beyond my vocabulary, so I can't really tell how much of an insult they are.

[quote]<strong>
Or DaveGee making fun on someone cause they are from the Bronx?
</strong><hr></blockquote>

Which he later on explained clarifying he was from NY himself. Without that clarification, I would have agreed though.

[quote]<strong>
Or Codename making fun of someone cause they was Republican?
(...)
Or Bogie calling me a spammer and saying I am being "too bitchy"?
Or SkipJack telling me I have no credibility with bogus proof?
Or Some one hiding behind a nick "AppleApologist" to flame me?
</strong><hr></blockquote>

Well, at least in my opinion, none of those qualify as name-calling. Of course, YMMV.

[quote]<strong>
Do you have selective site?
</strong><hr></blockquote>

No, my sight is quite ok once i wear my glasses

[quote]<strong>
It just seems no one gets that Apple was the only company that made the OS X ready claims for these machines.
</strong><hr></blockquote>

[quote]Originally posted by Skipjack:
<strong>It was not bogus and you are still not taking the entire thread into context, but backpedaling. See the previous comment.
<hr></blockquote></strong>
It WAS bogus. He DID NOT make himself clear. And YOUR arguing semantics. It has NOTHING to do with this discussion. And just how am I backpedaling please?
[quote]<strong>
No one is hiding behind the nick AppleApologist.
<hr></blockquote></strong>
Really? you weren't using your regular nick to flame me. That is called hiding behind another alias.
[quote]<strong>
AppleApologist was used because I was posting from work.
<hr></blockquote></strong>
Oh and you can't log into your normal account at work? heh
[quote]<strong>
You never asked or challenged the remarks.
<hr></blockquote></strong>
I cared less who the troll was.
[quote]<strong>
You know, I don't think anyone has disputed this. There has been a debate about whether or not, in certain individual's experience "OS X ready" means the same thing to you as it does to someone else, and you are not respecting their opinion that for their purposes they see nothing wrong with OS X on the computers in question.
<hr></blockquote></strong>
And they are being apologists. It doesn't get too much cut and dry than this folks.
[quote]<strong>
I believe people are trying to get a little more information. We already know your opinion and the discussion gets confrontational when people respond to individual lines in in individual posts taking things out of context or without regard to posts which have come before.
<hr></blockquote></strong>
Neither Apple nor ATI is offering info about this. Any "information" I have been seeing is purely guessing and speculation.

[quote]<strong>
So, again,

For some of us (perhaps because we grew up when sliderules were the rage), OS X works fine. The "power users" should respect that.

For others, OS X is still not adequate. I think we agree on that.

The particular subject is older ATI graphics.
ATI has stated that it will no longer support driver development drivers for those cards.

Apple may or may not have stated that it will no longer develop drivers. Yes, the news media said that Apple would no longer develop drivers, but there are circumstances which indicate that their interpretation might not reflect Apple's intentions.

If Apple has made it the policy that it will never improve the drivers, then some computers will never work to their user's expectations, and those users feel betrayed by Apple. Also, some see this as Apple's planned obsolescence in order to spur their hardware sales. Some people see this as unethical and some see it as "business as usual".

OK, so what can we expect from Apple (whether or not it is the right thing to do)? Do we expect them to submit to pressure, do we expect them to ignore their customers, do we not expect drivers due to technical reasons beyond their control?

I use a stock 9500 with a stock graphics card and a G3/400 upgrade, an original iBook, and a G4/450 Cube. I do some word processing, web surfing/shopping, and programming both in the GUI and in the terminal. OS X is fine for my needs and is at least as comfortable to use as the Dual P3/600 Mhz units with NT 4.0 that I test every day for work.

I believe there may be technical issues which may prevent Apple from developing drivers as demonstrated by the cross-platform difficulties that people are having getting the Rage Pro drivers to work with the newer OSs (both OS X and Win XP). In the case that Apple has stopped work on the drivers as a business decision, I believe that Apple will work on the drivers, but not as a priority (maybe by next year).

If OS X did not work properly on the iBook, then I would feel betrayed by Apple, but in my experience, I haven't seen any problems so don't know what the fuss is about.

Perhaps if people would state some examples, I could be sympathetic, but until then I haven't even heard of any behaviors cited in this threa<hr></blockquote></strong>

Just because YOU think OS X runs just fine.. and YOU are happy just to let Apple screw you over doesn't mean EVERYONE will be.

The crucial memorandum will be snared in the out-basket bythe paper clip of the overlying memo and go to file.

[quote]Originally posted by RazzFazz:
<strong>
I don't remember any one of them using the word moron in this thread, nor anyone else, except for you.
<hr></blockquote></strong>
Oh so moron is somehow worse than the words that other people where saying?
[quote]<strong>
Still, I do agree that others have shown comparably unnecessary rough behaviour in this thread. Yet, as you state yourself later on:
<hr></blockquote></strong>
And I wasn't posting that to justify me calling people morons. I was just pointing out I was not the only one "name calling"
[quote]<strong>
Well, these are somewhat beyond my vocabulary, so I can't really tell how much of an insult they are.
<hr></blockquote></strong>
They are insults.
[quote]<strong>
Well, at least in my opinion, none of those qualify as name-calling. Of course, YMMV
<hr></blockquote></strong>
They are when used to describe someone in a negative way.
[quote]<strong>
Hm, heard that before somewhere...
<hr></blockquote></strong>
Good! Now I know you have read it! You have no excuse!

The crucial memorandum will be snared in the out-basket bythe paper clip of the overlying memo and go to file.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Sinewave:
[QB][/qb]
Just because YOU think OS X runs just fine.. and YOU are happy just to let Apple screw you over doesn't mean EVERYONE will be.

Can you at least respond to the point? The Quake comment was from Scott H. and not you. What, in your experience, are some of the ways in which OS X does not work well with your machine? Do you play games? Do you use Photoshop? Audio? Video playback?

To spell it out, some of us who do not see what puts you in a tizzy just don't know what bugs you so much because we haven't seen whatever it is you don't like.

Either that, or this discussion is just for the sake of argument, about the paradigm that Apple uses the policy of planned obsolesence independent of the real world situation.

I went to OS X originally for a more complete implementation of Java then I could get in OS 9.

P.S. Ask the moderators. You cannot log into two machines at the same time.

[quote]Originally posted by Skipjack:
<strong>Can you at least respond to the point? The Quake comment was from Scott H. and not you. What, in your experience, are some of the ways in which OS X does not work well with your machine? Do you play games? Do you use Photoshop? Audio? Video playback?<hr></blockquote></strong>
Does it matter if I even own a machine that doesn't work right? Does that make Apple somehow justified? I don't get the point your trying to make.
[quote]<strong>
To spell it out, some of us who do not see what puts you in a tizzy just don't know what bugs you so much because we haven't seen whatever it is you don't like.
<hr></blockquote></strong>
Because Apple lied to it's customers? Because OS X isn't fully supported like it was supposed to be? That someone doesn't have video acceleration on their computer?
[quote]<strong>
Either that, or this discussion is just for the sake of argument, about the paradigm that Apple uses the policy of planned obsolesence independent of the real world situation.
<hr></blockquote></strong>
All I claim is Apple is wrong for doing it. And that Apple needs to make amends. That is all I am saying. It's hard to argue otherwise.
[quote]<strong>
I went to OS X originally for a more complete implementation of Java then I could get in OS 9.

P.S. Ask the moderators. You cannot log into two machines at the same time.</strong><hr></blockquote>

You was still hiding behind a alias to flame me.

The crucial memorandum will be snared in the out-basket bythe paper clip of the overlying memo and go to file.

It was a simple question. The ONLY reason it matter whether or not you have a machine that works is to see if there is a real-world problem or whether you are arguing a general policy. And it, in fact, does not have to be your machine, but anything else you would like to share.

Posted by Sinewave:

"All I claim is Apple is wrong for doing it (the paradigm that Apple uses the policy of planned obsolesence). And that Apple needs to make amends. That is all I am saying. It's hard to argue otherwise."

I think there are (at least) two points here. First, is Apple "doing it". Some people think so. Some people don't. It's hard to argue otherwise.
Second, if Apple is "doing it" then Apple needs to make amends. I can't see where anyone has disagreed with this from a moral standpoint, but people don't believe it will happen from a business standpoint.

You haven't proven that Apple is doing it, but neither is it proved that Apple is not doing it because most of the "evidence" is not definitive.

So what's the point? Is it to keep this thread alive so that it is in the minds of everyone who visits the forum? To claim a "last post, therefore I'm right" victory? "More means right?" Can we get a vote of whose mind has been changed here?

[ 01-03-2002: Message edited by: Skipjack ]

Edited because I don't care if the "last post" is the point.

Mr/Ms. Sinewave, I get the impression you don't care one way or the other, but if you perceived my comments as a "flame", for what it's worth, I apologize.

One more try, then maybe it's back to lurking for a couple of years:

Andrew Orlowski, in The Register:
"No it's simple: it's the User Interface, Stupid. We'll be particularly cruel here and bracket performance in as a user interface issue. It's really what marketing types would call a "user experience" issue, but if performance impairs the usage of the machine, then that's bad UI. And performance on OS X is really NOT GOOD."

So is it a failure to support the existing graphics hardware or poor performance of OS X overall? Yes, I know Mr/Ms. Sinewave, that your point is an Apple policy and this does not address that. No I'm not trying to take it from "Blame the user" to "Blame the software" and away from "Blame Apple".

Well, if what you said above is accurate and I have not misunderstood then your goal was not to discuss Mac OS X graphics support, it was to defend those people, they are gone and the subject of the thread was not defending them, it was Mac OS X graphics support.

So, I am guessing that the above is not correct and that you have still not told me clearly and concisely what your goal is.

Quote
--------------------------------------------------
Sinewave - "I have been discussing the poor support for machines Apple claims it was going to support. Wasn't that what this topic was about?"
--------------------------------------------------

Well, I would have to say that "discussing" is far from objective as you have just been blatantly stone walling people and trying to deafen them with cries of "you're wrong," however, "poor support" is pretty objective and I agree with that assessment.

I am asking for more than your logical conclusion of "Apple made the Macs and Apple made the claim" before I assess blame to either Apple or ATi.

Can you give me anything beyond that one argument that you have provided over and over?

No, and so I am asking you to make it clear, I reread your posts on the thread, I became more confused, please tell me clearly what your goal is.

Quote
--------------------------------------------------
Sinewave-Neither Apple nor ATI is offering info about this. Any "information" I have been seeing is purely guessing and speculation.
--------------------------------------------------

In that case you have no evidence that you are right beyond "guessing and speculation" eh?

Now, that was just down right silly to say that out in the open because all it tells me is that you don't know what you are talking about, and your conjecture is not enough for me to decide that Apple, or anyone else for that matter, is in the wrong.

I am pretty sure after that admission that you might be best to just back out of this discussion unless you can provide something beyond "guessing and speculation" because you won't convince anyone here with that.

Well, your last two posts were long and bantered back and forth with Skipjack about name calling, I would have to say that as far as off topic goes you both were, but that is just the clearest example for you.

To be honest I still can't believe after all this fighting and arguing you admitted that all you know about Apple and ATi support for Rage Pro, LT, II, II+, and IIc is only "guessing and speculation."

[quote]Originally posted by Bogie:
<strong>No, and so I am asking you to make it clear, I reread your posts on the thread, I became more confused, please tell me clearly what your goal is.</strong><hr></blockquote>

If you can't tell then I can't help you.

I remember when ATi published that page that they would not support the Rage Pro. I asked in Apple's Discussion forums about this issue. Although I did get a reply from Apple support it said almost nothing. What Apple should have done is reevaluated what driver support they would have and not have. They knew back then they were on their own. Yet they still provided NO information to the users. How are we to know if the drivers are coming in one of the Job promised "updates" or not? Every time I asked I got no answer. I even wrote to Apple and got pawned off on that kbase page that tells you to turn down the bit depth.

Simple fact. Apple blew it. They knew long ago that they would not have the needed drivers. The ignored the issue for months and months and months. They mislead their users and now they've dropped them. There's no reason in the world for Apple to allow it to get this far. It's no one's fault but Apple's.

"I remember when ATi published that page that they would not support the Rage Pro. They knew back then they were on their own. Yet they still provided NO information to the users. How are we to know if the drivers are coming in one of the Job promised "updates" or not?

Simple fact. Apple blew it. They knew long ago that they would not have the needed drivers. The ignored the issue for months and months and months."

Thank you for bringing this point up. Just roughly, when did you find out about the ATi support change? Was this what the original TIL said? Or was the inclusion of "Further development ... not planned." not in response to a change in ATI policy but was indicative of a change in Apple's intent?

[quote]Originally posted by Skipjack:
<strong>It was a simple question. The ONLY reason it matter whether or not you have a machine that works is to see if there is a real-world problem or whether you are arguing a general policy. And it, in fact, does not have to be your machine, but anything else you would like to share.
<hr></blockquote></strong>

I am arguing the policy. As I stated before. I think it's a bad deal.
[quote]<strong>
Posted by Sinewave:

"All I claim is Apple is wrong for doing it (the paradigm that Apple uses the policy of planned obsolesence). And that Apple needs to make amends. That is all I am saying. It's hard to argue otherwise."

I think there are (at least) two points here. First, is Apple "doing it". Some people think so. Some people don't. It's hard to argue otherwise.<hr></blockquote></strong>
But Apple did make these claims. If you don't think they did you have a right to believe that... but you'd be in denial.
[quote]<strong>
Second, if Apple is "doing it" then Apple needs to make amends. I can't see where anyone has disagreed with this from a moral standpoint, but people don't believe it will happen from a business standpoint.
<hr></blockquote></strong>
Yes there are people in here that claim Apple has no responsibility to do this.
[quote]<strong>
You haven't proven that Apple is doing it, but neither is it proved that Apple is not doing it because most of the "evidence" is not definitive.
<hr></blockquote></strong>
If your trying to argue semantics maybe. Seems pretty cut and dry to me.
[quote]<strong>
So what's the point? Is it to keep this thread alive so that it is in the minds of everyone who visits the forum? To claim a "last post, therefore I'm right" victory? "More means right?" Can we get a vote of whose mind has been changed here?
<hr></blockquote></strong>
Hmm these are non of my thoughts.. If some one replied to a post of mine I feel obligated to reply. If you don't want me saying anything else.. don't reply to my posts I guess.
[quote]<strong>
Mr/Ms. Sinewave, I get the impression you don't care one way or the other, but if you perceived my comments as a "flame", for what it's worth, I apologize.
<hr></blockquote></strong>
I wasn't really hurt by it. Notice I didn't make a big deal about it when you did it. I didn't even respond. It's not worth mentioning anymore.
[quote]<strong>
One more try, then maybe it's back to lurking for a couple of years:

Andrew Orlowski, in The Register:
"No it's simple: it's the User Interface, Stupid. We'll be particularly cruel here and bracket performance in as a user interface issue. It's really what marketing types would call a "user experience" issue, but if performance impairs the usage of the machine, then that's bad UI. And performance on OS X is really NOT GOOD."
<hr></blockquote></strong>
Yes I agree. And when you have no graphic acceleration support it's EVEN WORSE.
[quote]<strong>
So is it a failure to support the existing graphics hardware or poor performance of OS X overall? <hr></blockquote></strong>
I never claimed it was. Not supporting the machines Apple said they would is just pouring salt over that wound.
[quote]<strong>
Yes, I know Mr/Ms. Sinewave, that your point is an Apple policy and this does not address that. No I'm not trying to take it from "Blame the user" to "Blame the software" and away from "Blame Apple".
</strong><hr></blockquote>
I am not sure what your point of that was.

The crucial memorandum will be snared in the out-basket bythe paper clip of the overlying memo and go to file.

[quote]Originally posted by Scott H.:
<strong>
I remember when ATi published that page that they would not support the Rage Pro. I asked in Apple's Discussion forums about this issue. Although I did get a reply from Apple support it said almost nothing. What Apple should have done is reevaluated what driver support they would have and not have. They knew back then they were on their own. Yet they still provided NO information to the users. How are we to know if the drivers are coming in one of the Job promised "updates" or not?
(...)
Simple fact. Apple blew it. They knew long ago that they would not have the needed drivers. The ignored the issue for months and months and months. They mislead their users and now they've dropped them.</strong><hr></blockquote>

You'll probably turn this aside as another attempt at Apple-Apologizing, but has it ever occured to you that maybe the folks at Apple didn't actually know for certain whether they would at some point provide drivers for the RagePro? Maybe (most certainly) they didn't know in advance how everything relating to OS X would work out in the end, so they might actually not have known for sure so early that they'd completely drop HW-acceleration-support for these cards? I'm not saying this is the case, I just think this might be a possibility you'd have to consider before putting the blame on Apple like you did.

[quote]Originally posted by Bogie:
<strong>Quote
I asked you to confirm that your purpose was to defend them, is that the case or did I misunderstand?<hr></blockquote></strong>
Not my sole purpose no.. and again.. wtf does this have to do with anything about Apple or ATI supporting OS X?
[quote]<strong>
Well, if what you said above is accurate and I have not misunderstood then your goal was not to discuss Mac OS X graphics support, it was to defend those people, they are gone and the subject of the thread was not defending them, it was Mac OS X graphics support.
<hr></blockquote>[q/b]
Heh I was defending their position on the Mac OS X graphic support. I was discussing it with every one else. Stop grabbing for straws.
[quote][qb]
So, I am guessing that the above is not correct and that you have still not told me clearly and concisely what your goal is.
<hr></blockquote></strong>
Can I seriously ask you a question? Who are you to ask me what my goals of this discussion is? You tell me *I* am going off topic .. but you'd rather get personal about my "goal" here was. Pot... kettle. Frankly it's non of your damn business.
[quote]<strong>
Well, I would have to say that "discussing" is far from objective as you have just been blatantly stone walling people and trying to deafen them with cries of "you're wrong," however, "poor support" is pretty objective and I agree with that assessment
<hr></blockquote></strong>
Just like you have been blatantly ignoring the fact that Only Apple is responsible for their own words? Just like your trying to justify their actions? It's really not that objective. OS X ready means your computer is ready for OS X. Having a card that doesn't support OS X means it's not OS X ready. You can try to grab at straws and try to justify Apple doing this through FUD all you want.
[quote]<strong>
I am asking for more than your logical conclusion of "Apple made the Macs and Apple made the claim" before I assess blame to either Apple or ATi.

Can you give me anything beyond that one argument that you have provided over and over?
<hr></blockquote></strong>
Heh I don't NEED to give anything beyond that. It's CUT AND DRY. Apple is the one that made the claims.. Apple is the one responsible. JEESH. And you guys wonder why I call some of you morons. Even the simplest logic gets lost. Or do you not believe one should have to take responsibilities for their actions?

The crucial memorandum will be snared in the out-basket bythe paper clip of the overlying memo and go to file.

I will agree they have blown this issue in the PR field, can't tell yet if they have really screwed up though since they have not declared that drivers will not be developed.

Quote
------------------------
They knew long ago that they would not have the needed drivers.
------------------------

Unless you can provide me proof of this in terms of some sort of admission or policy statement it is just conjecture and caries no weight.

Quote
------------------------
The ignored the issue for months and months and months.
------------------------

This is a cynical but credible take on the situation, I don't know that I agree but I can't argue with it.

Quote
------------------------
They mislead their users and now they've dropped them.
------------------------

We don't know that they have dropped support, they sure haven't told us that they have dropped support. As far as misleading, I think you have to read into the situation a bit to be mislead by it, if you call Apple tech support they will clearly tell you that the original iMac is supported. Legally they would have to have done a lot more than what they did to qualify as misleading their customers.

Quote
------------------------
There's no reason in the world for Apple to allow it to get this far. It's no one's fault but Apple's.
------------------------

We don't know if either of these conclusions are true. I am asking for a reason that Apple might have allowed it to get this far and if it is someone else's fault it would make sense that it has gotten this far because Apple would not be in a position to stop it. Other than the logical argument that Sinewave made there is no evidence that it was Apple's fault and not ATi's, I am looking for such evidence that shows it is the fault of one and not the other. If you have some please share it, I would be interested.

[quote]Originally posted by Sinewave:
<strong>Oh so moron is somehow worse than the words that other people where saying? </strong><hr></blockquote>

If you read my post again, you'll find that I never said something like that. I just found it kinda funny that you, being the only one in here to have repeatedly called others morons, happened to claim "I come in to support them saying I too think it's bogus and I get called a whiner and a moron" of all things. Nothing more, nothing less.

[quote]<strong>
And I wasn't posting that to justify me calling people morons. I was just pointing out I was not the only one "name calling"
</strong><hr></blockquote>

I was well aware of that fact, and even quoted the passage where you stated it right in the next paragraph of my post.

[quote]Originally posted by RazzFazz:
<strong>
If you read my post again, you'll find that I never said something like that. I just found it kinda funny that you, being the only one in here to have repeatedly called others morons, happened to claim "I come in to support them saying I too think it's bogus and I get called a whiner and a moron" of all things. Nothing more, nothing less.
<hr></blockquote></strong>
Oh just more arguing semantics?

The crucial memorandum will be snared in the out-basket bythe paper clip of the overlying memo and go to file.

Quote
------------
"Can I seriously ask you a question? Who are you to ask me what my goals of this discussion is? ... Frankly it's non of your damn business."
------------

Well, if I am in the discussion and I don't know what you are trying to say [ie where you want to take the discussion/point/goal/motive/whatever then you are failing at getting your point across, that is just common sense.

Quote
------------
Just like your trying to justify their actions?
------------

I haven't tried to justify their actions. I have asked if there were any other possible reasons other than Apple choosing to harm its own customers, you haven't shown me that those reasons are invalid.